Dear City Council members: As I am sure that you are all aware, the citizens of Peachtree City that live in the West Village have been greatly disappointed with the delays and changes in positions regarding this vital decision that is facing you with regards to the annexation application of John Wieland Homes and Neighborhoods.
I have followed this whole process and have been working relentlessly to do anything that I can to convey to you, the City Council, how the West Village residents truly feel about the extension of MacDuff Parkway and the annexation proposal that John Wieland Homes and Neighborhoods has presented.
Councilman [Steve] Rapson has asked me previously if the Centennial Home Owners Association would be content to simply extend MacDuff or were we really interested in the annexation as well.
Our HOA conveyed to Mr. Rapson that we wanted and needed both to protect property values and increase the quality of life here on the Westside.
Representatives from Wynnmeade, Chadsworth at Ashton Reserve, Planterra Ridge, the Summit Apartments, and Cedarcroft have all sided with our association in this. Note that all of these associations exist in the West Village.
We have received the support of the Peachtree City Youth Soccer Association, Blueberry Hill, Peachtree Christian Church, members of the Peachtree City Senior Council, and yes, the Lutheran Church as well.
Your very own Fire Chief [Stony] Lohr and Police Chief [James] Murray have said they support the extension of MacDuff Parkway. Both gentlemen realize that should that property not be annexed and yet still built, their personnel will be responding to any and all emergencies even though the emergencies will be in the county.
So with this much support for this project, I was astounded to hear Mr. Rapson claim that residents in the West Village don’t want the annexation, they simply want MacDuff extended.
To be certain, there will be a few people in opposition; but in all, I repeat, all, of the public meetings that I have attended, and that is every one, there has been very little opposition and a tremendous outpouring of support.
To build MacDuff as Councilman Rapson is proposing would likely result in the “high speed bypass” that none of us want.
By the city and county building a road without the developer, there will be no intersections to slow down traffic. There will be nothing to prevent MacDuff Parkway from becoming the Westside bypass that we all fear.
As residents you have certainly driven around the county at some point in time. Would you rather see the county controlled development of 5,000-square-foot homes next to 2,000-square-foot homes on two-acre lots with little or no consistency in building styles, or would you rather see your very own city staff oversee that?
In a recent newspaper article in The Citizen News, it was reported that during your meeting with the planning staff, “Weed said he wanted the city to develop a town center to create a downtown atmosphere. Peachtree City lacks a ‘downtown’ area as it was broken up into four villages, each served by a certain amount of stores instead of there being one main commercial district for the entire population, pushing 40,000, to use.”
The article went further to claim that “Rast noted that some developers have inquired about putting small residential projects within current retail centers, which could be a way to ‘invigorate’ the centers by creating a live-work-play atmosphere.”
You have heard both of these from the Wieland proposal as the type of development that they wish to bring to Peachtree City. So why the stonewalling? If this is indeed your wishes, here is a quality builder that can bring this to you.
At your last council meeting of Feb. 3, you tabled this motion to approach the county to see if they were interested in building this road.
I have been told that the county will not fund one dime for projects in Peachtree City as long as Mayor Brown, Councilman Rapson, and Councilman Weed are on the bench. With all of the fighting going on between these administrations, this should not come as a surprise to anybody.
At the last council meeting, Clyde Stricklin, director of developmental services for Peachtree City, gave estimates of the costs of building the MacDuff extension. His numbers appear to be incredibly low. When I e-mailed him about the numbers, this is the response that I received:
“You are correct the estimates as mentioned were not engineering estimates but only for general comparison purposes. They were general cost figures from other studies that may or may not have been similar. They may or may not include the separate cost of railroad crossings, nor a separate cost for intersections (accel and decel lanes) nor signals. They may or may not include payments for utilities relocations nor rail road easements and contracts to build the bridge over the railroad in alternative two. They may or may not include wetlands studies required to pass through wetlands areas and hydraulic studies for flood zones and/or zero-rise certifications as required for FEMA work in flood areas.
“The bridge estimate is from the Highway 54 widening project. The existing two-lane bridge is being removed and expanded to four lanes. Again site conditions and actual design may or may not warrant similar cost. Our estimate was over $6 million for alternative two....”
As you can see by all of the “may or may not’s” the numbers will in all likelihood be significantly higher. Why should the taxpayer pay for this road, when again, we have a builder with the finances, offering to do so while adding value to Peachtree City?
I have been hearing a number closer to $5 million to build the road, create the intersection at MacDuff and Ga. Highway 74, and to install the safest type of at-grade crossing there is.
The crossing would be a fully gated crossing that would not allow cars to weave through the crossing, and it would be tied into the traffic signal to allow traffic to flush before the train arrives.
Mr. Stricklin’s estimate was slightly over $2 million. That is a considerable spread between the two estimates and it is quite a sum of money for the taxpayer to cough up.
Lastly, I personally contacted John Wieland Homes and Neighborhoods inquiring about their next moves. What I heard made me sick to my stomach.
John Wieland is considering pulling the plug on this development and may actually rescind their application for annexation.
Should this happen, we all lose. You have a chance to allow a premier builder build a development that screams Peachtree City all over it, and you may miss the opportunity to do so.
I once again, ask for your support in voting yes for the Phase 1 Annexation application at your earliest possible chance. If the plans come back and they don’t make sense, then don’t approve Phase 2, but at least give us a chance to see what could be done on the west side of our great city.
Dana Kinser Peachtree City, Ga.
Default position on annexing: No
First let me apologize for not responding sooner to your e-mail but I’ve been out of town since Monday at a conference. I would however like to respond [to] a few of the statements you made.
“Citizens of Peachtree City that live in the West Village have been greatly disappointed with the delays and changes in positions regarding this vital decision.“
As I have stated on numerous occasions, my default setting for annexation requests is “no.” I have to be utterly convinced, perhaps convicted would be a more suitable word, that an annexation either would be in the best interest of the city or would enhance the quality of life that our residents expect and deserve.
I do not believe a development that would be five and a half times more dense is in the best interest of the city.
In addition, Fayette County would have a bona-fide land use objection and the Fayette County chairman has already said the county would fight the request.
“I was astounded to hear Mr. Rapson claim that residents in the West Village don’t want the annexation, they simply want MacDuff extended.”
What I said was that dozens of West Village residents and many other residents of this city share the same concerns caused by increased density and the impacts it would have on our community.
“To build MacDuff as Councilman Rapson is proposing would likely result in the ‘high speed bypass’ that none of us want. By the city and county building a road without the developer, there will be no intersections to slow down traffic.”
City Council would never build a road with no forethought to traffic flow or mitigation. My request was that the city, county and the developer all be involved in this project.
“At your last council meeting of Feb. 3, you tabled this motion to approach the county to see if they were interested in building this road. I have been told that the county will not fund one dime for projects in Peachtree City as long as Mayor Brown, Councilman Rapson, and Councilman Weed are on the bench.”
I still remain optimistic concerning the county leadership. They stepped up to the plate with the TDK Extension and this is simply a smaller, but just as critical version, of that problem. I would be interested in knowing where you’re getting your information since I’m still waiting on the county’s answer to this question.
Thank you for taking the time to express your opinion and if you’d like to discuss this further please give me a call.
Steve Rapson, councilman Peachtree City, Ga.
West Village would be far too dense
Dear Dana: As you are aware I ran on a no-annexation platform. I have never supported annexation in the city and I never will. My position on this matter has never changed.
Originally I was willing to consider allowing our in-house planning team to review the plans. However, at the February meeting when this came back up, our staff indicated, for the first time in writing, that they and the city attorney could not work on this matter without considerable city expense.
Basically they said they would have to dedicate a staff person essentially full-time for an entire year to the project.
You also know we just hired a part-time planner because of the existing workload. Thus I could not justify the expense of allowing the staff to review the matter knowing that I would be voting against the same.
Mr. Wieland never committed to fund the entirety of our costs to be incurred for what would essentially be his project. His offer (after I asked him) to partially fund the same simply was not sufficient to warrant a vote in favor from me.
Lastly the matter is a density issue. I am convinced the county would issue a valid land use objection to any annexation which would raise the density five and a half times from what the density is currently.
Essentially this would mean 650 to 750 new homes and families and the new burden on the city’s infrastructure and public safety.
Remember, long after any impact fee is spent, the 650 to 750 families will still be in the city.
At this time I feel the costs outweigh the benefit to the existing population.
The council fully supports extending MacDuff Parkway. Although there are many who want the annexation for other reasons than getting MacDuff extended, there are as many residents of the west side who wanted the annexation simply because they thought the annexation was the only way to get MacDuff built.
Fortunately the council seems committed to working [to build] the road whatever happens with annexation.
I supported the $280,000 to design the same and I will support full funding. The county should realize that this road is no different than TDK and support the same. If they do not, I am still committed to extend it.
In fact at the last council meeting the county asked us to dedicate certain land for a county siren project. We, of course, agreed. The city has always been willing to meet the county half way. We can prove our attempts to compromise.
I remain hopeful that they will continue to work with us. We will never give up trying.
If the road must be redesigned to be an all-city road, then I for one am willing to design it as such.
I hope this response further clarifies where I am at on this important matter and my reasoning. I also hope that while I am sure you disagree with my reasoning, you will respect the fact that I have given this matter considerable thought.
Murray Weed, councilman Peachtree City, Ga.
HB218: Vital job creation activities threatened by early public exposure
Georgia must work aggressively to strengthen our competitive position. The need of our citizens for jobs is great and attracting employers is increasingly tough. Local governments and economic developers are working together with state agencies to keep Georgia on the “short-list” for preferred location of companies across the country and around the globe.
But all too often this vital work is jeopardized by the risk of negotiations for job-creating projects becoming public too soon.
House Bill 218 allows state and local governments to protect confidential information during on-going negotiations with economic development prospects, the potential future employers of Georgians.
The law removes an obstacle to job-creation by putting Georgia on par with most other states that have already acted to protect their prospect information, and more of Georgia’s competitors are figuring out how to get at Georgia’s unprotected competitive information.
HB 218 will keep Georgia’s economic playbook out of the hands of our competition, and protect continued job opportunities for Georgians.
Contrary to media reports, the proposed legislation does not change the laws and public procedures of zoning, planning, or environmental permitting.
Projects cannot be approved without public comment concerning any potential environmental impact on the community, nor will zoning changes be allowed outside the public’s view.
All information that is currently open to the public concerning economic development projects will remain open following the completion of negotiations.
The point of negotiations is to find a deal that is beneficial to both the business and the community, with the community working to assure that the benefits received from the project are greater than the costs.
This bill protects Georgia’s chance for jobs by protecting on-going negotiations, but it does not shield public officials from public accountability.
Local elected officials and economic development leaders must justify any deal they negotiate, and at the local level, this does not only mean at the polls, but also by facing their neighbors every day in the community.
Why are confidential discussions necessary? Because company relocation and expansion decisions affect employees, their families, shareholders and others, as well as a company’s competitive position in the marketplace, information about those negotiations must be kept confidential until a project announcement can be made.
The business risk to employers from premature or incomplete release of information is significant, and unless confidentiality can be assured, they will take their jobs to another state.
In the Southeast today, only Georgia and West Virginia do not exempt certain economic development information from open records requests. States that protect the confidential information of companies have a clear competitive advantage over Georgia.
In fact, Florida exempts this information from public disclosure for 10 years following the completion of any negotiations.
Local elected officials fully support open government. Economic developers are in the marketing business and clearly want everyone to be aware of efforts to bring job opportunities to Georgia.
But because we want to support more and better jobs for our citizens, we need to support reasonable protection of information during negotiations.
Making a reasonable adjustment in the time at which economic development information is to be released is in the public interest, will preserve the chance for jobs, and is critical to our state’s long-term competitiveness and economic success.
Jerry Griffin Executive Director Association County Commissioners of Georgia (ACCG)
Jim Higdon Executive Director Georgia Municipal Association (GMA)
Cullen Larson Executive Director Georgia Economic Developers Association (GEDA)
HB218 is dagger in heart of good government
I strongly appreciate your support and endorse your paper’s coming out against HB 218. This issue should be of great concern to all citizens of the state of Georgia.
The pending legislation is not a Republican vs. Democrat or liberal vs. conservative issue.
The installation of a law that removes from public scrutiny any negotiation between the state and prospective businesses developers for the use of state land is shady at best and a dagger in the heart of good government.
By enacting this law, the concerns of fair and open government are secondary to the needs of economic development.
Proponents of the legislation posit the theory that secrecy is the engine that makes things happen, and that if we were to get wind of what is going on, the developers would go to another state to do business. What is there to hide?
Developers may be afraid that the general population may be against them if we knew what they were up to. That may well be the case, but we have a right to know.
So, for the short-term economic benefit of the developers, we are given no option to information until the deal has been either done or dropped.
What may appear to be a good reason for economic development is really one more reason for voters to be wary and dissatisfied with the way elected officials conduct themselves in the offices to which we elect them. Trust in government is lost.
Now, if one should be concerned that businesses will go shopping to other states to set up shop, maybe all states should have equal protection with laws of open government, and then all business can be done up front and on the table rather than sneaking around under the table undermining the intent of good government.
Juan Matute Peachtree City, Ga.
Open records laws ‘hamstring’ development
Providing jobs for Georgia’s citizens is the mission of the Georgia Department of Economic Development (GDEcD). The quality jobs we pursue grow a diversified industry base and provide Georgians the highest possible standard of living.
This legislation will equip Georgia to compete in the increasingly cut-throat business of economic development.
Job recruitment is a process of elimination and one of the reasons a state can be knocked out of the list for consideration is an inability to protect information deemed sensitive by the company. Today, Georgia is at a distinct disadvantage in this area.
Georgia’s current laws hamstring us, giving our competition a significant advantage. Nearly every other state in the country has recognized the importance of delaying the opening of records about business negotiations until the negotiations conclude or are abandoned.
In a given year, GDEcD negotiates with as many as 400 companies to sell the state’s business resources and assets, and convince them our state is the best place to locate their operations.
These negotiations seek to strike a balance that is beneficial to the state, our citizens and the company that we have sold on its ability to grow and thrive here.
As Georgians and economic development professionals, we want what is best for our communities. We recognize that our neighbors deserve information about business development and that those same neighbors will greatly benefit from good jobs.
House Bill 218 allows the privacy companies require, while providing for disclosure immediately after negotiations conclude.
We also recognize that our neighbors should be actively involved in how land in their communities is developed. For that reason, this legislation will have absolutely no impact on land use planning, zoning or environmental meetings.
Every county in our state maintains a land use plan, and any changes to that plan require public discussion. This bill will not change that in any way.
To date, Georgia has been fortunate that the assets we bring to the negotiating table have been strong enough to counteract this disadvantage. This may not always be the case. Passage of this legislation is critical to our state’s long-term competitiveness and economic prosperity.
It is critical that we continue working aggressively to strengthen the state’s business recruitment tools. Our future depends on it.
Craig Lesser, commissioner Georgia Department of Economic Development (GDEcD) Atlanta, Ga.
HB218 bad for taxpayers
I wholeheartedly agree that House Bill 218 is not in the best interest of the taxpayers.
Being a former elected official, I felt then and still feel to this day that when you are taking taxpayers’ monies, the taxpayers have a right to know how their monies are spent.
If you cannot be honest and open with taxpayers’ monies, then you have NO business making decisions on behalf of the taxpayers.
In my opinion, the only time a meeting should be closed to the public is [for] personnel [reasons].
Grace Caldwell Tyrone, Ga.
Maybe sit-ins needed to get district voting here
Changing from at-large to district voting in Fayette County will likely be a long uphill struggle just like many other civil rights struggles I have witnessed.
It has to be difficult because people in the majority always fear change, especially when it is proposed by the so-called minority. But change is indeed necessary to keep Fayette County from violating the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Voter dilution caused by at-large voting is illegal.
A change is also necessary because it benefits all of the citizens as well as those who run for office.
Perhaps change will only come after persistent high profile civil rights protest marches, sit-ins and demonstrations in downtown Fayetteville.
Perhaps change will come after economic boycotts or litigation in federal court.
By any means necessary, Fayette County will eventually change from at-large to district voting.
Why? Because the silent majority knows it is the right thing to do. The 1965 Voting Rights Act says it is the right thing to do.
So fear not for we have been down this road before. We anticipated the virulent rhetoric and opposition that accompanies any attempt to give all Fayette voters better representation that district voting provides.
We knew some would say it is all about race but in reality it is all about fairer representation and that transcends race and politics.
There is a message for those so adamantly opposed to district voting. As you go through the unnecessary motions of resisting the change from at-large to district voting, remember that faith moves mountains and prayer changes things. You are in my prayers.
John E. Jones Fairburn (Fayette County), Ga.
Entrenched politicians seem threatened by vote change
In response to Mr. Hobbs’s continued rebuffing of district voting for Fayette County’s election of commissioners, I respond with the following:
1. He claims that the issue is all about Democrats wanting to get a foothold in representation in the county, and not a race issue.
2. He clings to the mantra that dividing into voter districts would only encourage commissioners to be specialized in their own constituents’ affairs, and not for the good of the entire county.
I offer into discussion that the issue is about the method by which commissioners are elected, and the inability of the current system to offer fair representation. Indeed, many voters are dissatisfied, and would like to see a change.
As we get more into the discussion of the issue (at-large vs. district), we see that there is an entrenched body of local politicians who seem to be threatened that as the county changes over time, so does its government, and they don’t like it.
An erosion of political power from the central core of Old Fayetteville to all parts of the county is hard for them to swallow. The good old boys don’t like it, and are they ever angry that we are talking about it.
We should continue to discuss this in an open forum and hear each other out. The fact that Mr. Hobbs walked out of the open forum discussion on Feb. 8 at the Peachtree City Hall does little to bolster any credibility of him having an open mind in solving this county’s problems.
The issue is: What serves the needs of the county to serve all of its voters in the selection of county commissioners, district or at-large voting?
Mervine Garlow Peachtree City, Ga.
Thanks for Thorn story
Just wanted to say thank you for a great article on Bill Thorn and the roast we had in his honor last week. It was a tremendous evening and a special night for a special man. Thanks again for the article.
Matthew H. Skinner, headmaster Landmark Christian School Fairburn, Ga.
Later start for school: It should be about students, families, not teachers
I for one am ecstatic that the state of Georgia might mandate a later starting date to school. Contrary to various comments and articles I’ve seen, as a parent of school-age children in Fayette, I never received the “survey” as to whether I was in favor of year-round school or earlier start dates every summer.
I see several reasons why we should go back to a later start, and they have nothing to do with the tourism industry, but more so what is best for the students.
For starters, having children go back in the beginning of August when the weather is at its peak for heat and humidity in Georgia is not in the best interest of the health of children.
Many children have to endure 30- to 45-minute bus rides home and feel ill by the time they reach their stops. The younger children are withheld from recess, an important break in the school day, due to the heat outside. If they do go out, the school nurse’s office is frequently visited for heat-related sickness.
High school children who need to hold down summer jobs have a much shorter time of availability for potential employers. Employers look to hiring students to fill in for vacationing employees, many of whom take off in July and August.
Working parents of school-age children have a great deal of difficulty securing childcare for their children with all of the breaks Fayette has instituted during the school year.
The new winter break might be nice to have for a few, but in reality, many people do not go on vacation at this time of the year due to inclement weather.
Most children I spoke to last year were bored having a holiday in February, following the heels of a long Christmas break.
As well, I find all of the breaks during the school year a disruption to the continuity of education. The children seem to lose their concentration anticipating a break, and then need to wind down and get into the swing of things when returning from break. Valuable time in educating is lost before and after these frequent breaks.
I understand that some teachers may not be able to take summer courses due to conflict in start dates, but there are many evening classes available at colleges. The issue should not surround teachers who choose to return to college, but what is best for the students.
One other facet that the Fayette County BOE might want to review is the start time of school. In most other areas of the country, the elementary school children go to school later such as 8:30 or 9 a.m. start times, while the older children of high school age go earlier.
This earlier starting time enables high school students to have more time to complete their homework, participate in after-school activities, as well as allows time for students who need to have part-time after-school jobs to be able to work.
I have always thought that for young children, our early start times were a detriment to standardized test scores. I have seen children in first and second grade who often can’t stay awake throughout the day, or are so tired in the morning, their concentration levels are poor.
There is an interesting Web site called www.greatschools.net that allows one to compare schools all over the country. It was interesting for me to see that a school near where I grew up, having a larger population of racial diversity and a lower socioeconomic income level than most Fayette County schools, has far superior standardized test scores to Fayette County.
My thought is, Why reinvent the wheel? If other schools in the country that have a lesser socioeconomic level than Fayette are doing better educationally than our students, what are we doing wrong?
The state of Georgia is beginning to recognize their deficiencies in education compared to the rest of the U.S. and if one of them has to do with the start of the school year, then I for one support their judgment.
Denise Fair Fayetteville, Ga.
Recapture summer for kids, parents
I picked up my Citizen today and was thrilled to read about House Bill 285. Finally, some sense comes back to the school calendar.
For the last few years we have watched as the start date for school has inched its way back to the first week of August. I think for a majority of people this bill is about recapturing summer.
I do not think most people mind if summer is a little shorter and there are a few more breaks during the year. However, it’s awful having the kids out of school during the month of June (remember this past June? I do; it rained every day) and then sending them back during the height of summer.
Why can’t we be off in July and August when the weather all over the United States is more amenable to traveling and outdoor activities?
I read Emily Donahue’s letter that stated that the Fayette County School Board worked very closely with parents in the county to set a calendar each year and in fact sent out a survey.
My question is, “What survey?” I have three children in Peachtree City Schools and I have never received a single survey about the calendar, and no one I know has ever received a survey about the calendar.
In fact, there were many letters to the editor of this paper decrying what appeared to be a move to year-round school.
I do not particularly favor government intrusion into local politics either, but it seems that this schedule was set solely for the convenience of the teachers and administrators and had very little to do with the parents and students in Fayette County.
Susan Bertram Peachtree City, Ga.
Fayette schools limit achievement
I read with great interest the letter about the low level of work expected at Whitewater High School and it made me wonder why more parents have not voiced concerns.
Fayette County leaders have continually promoted the fact students score at the top in the state. What they don’t report is this should occur.
With one of the highest per capita incomes and the highest level of parent education (the two keys to student achievement) in the state, this level of achievement should be expected.
What I have found, unfortunately, is an attitude in the county of pushing students down, rather than up. When other schools systems in the state and across the nation are pushing more kids to take the most challenging courses, Fayette County leaders create roadblocks for such efforts.
These roadblocks include eliminating access to the top curriculum for all but a few, limiting the number of advanced sections and setting arbitrary rules for participation that do not have a research basis.
A recent example occurred where a student was not allowed to test out of a class even though the student clearly had the knowledge of the course. “Policy doesn’t allow us to do that,” was what the parent was told.
A district leader was quoted as stating the guidelines for an advanced program were created by “the teachers just agreeing on a number” shows that rules are developed arbitrarily. Schools should work with parents and students to push students to high levels.
Last year, Whitewater Middle School was told to do away with their program that pushed hundreds of students into advanced classes because the other middle schools were not doing it. Fortunately for students, a small parent uprising brought the program back. Unfortunately, the change cost students almost a month in opportunities.
Students in Fayette County must apply for advanced classes when other high-performing schools throughout the country look for ways of eliminating roadblocks rather than building them.
Advanced placement classes are limited to only a few even though the College Board recommends it be open to all willing to put forth the effort.
Why does Fayette County offer fewer advanced placement (AP) classes for all the schools then many single high schools? The answer is that the policies and procedures limit participation rather than encouraging involvement.
Advanced students in elementary and middle schools are allowed to have access to the gifted curriculum under state regulations, yet parents have not pushed this issue even though many schools in Georgia have made these programs accessible.
The success at Whitewater Middle School documents the program works. Parents need to know that the guise of state rules that keep kids from taking advanced classes is just that: a cover for the schools to do what they want.
A recent news article indicated the number one indicator of student success is a high-level curriculum. Knowing this, many administrators and teachers in the district create rules that keep kids from the highest-level opportunities.
The article went on to talk about a rural midwestern school with over 50 percent of the students eligible for free-reduced lunch. The school’s philosophy is to push students to high levels and over 80 percent of the students graduate with college credit (a key indicator of college success).
Parents in Fayette County need to know they have the rights to have their students get a high-level education and should push the schools to make sure it happens.
Scott Warren Director of Contracted Schools Network High Schools That Work/Making Middle Grades Work www.sreb.org
‘Unlawful’ DAPC debts not PTC’s responsibility
A particular mayoral candidate has committed to publishing several false statements regarding the Peachtree National Bank loans issued to the Development Authority.
The former City Council did appoint the former DAPC members. However, no City Council has the legal authority to remove a member of the DAPC except if a member fails to attend the minimum number of meetings allowed. By state law, the DAPC is an autonomous legal governmental entity that is held solely responsible its actions.
Most of the DAPC actions in question were performed in an unlawful manner. For the record, the Peachtree National Bank loans were issued as non-collateralized loans. The venues, owned by the taxpayers, were in no way attached or used as collateral for the Peachtree National Bank loans.
In fact, the previous City Council issued our City Hall and our new Fire Station on Paschall Drive as collateral for funding the tennis center expansion.
As I stated in the State of the City Address on the city Web site (www.peachtree-city.org), the bank had full knowledge of the status of the authority’s actions when they transferred the funds to the DAPC.
The DAPC purposefully failed to vote on their debt in the public forum as state law requires.
It is well documented that the funding for amphitheater and tennis center construction projects came from directly from the city.
Significant portions of the unlawful DAPC loans were used to cover operating expenses that were allowed to balloon far in excess of revenue.
The DAPC had no way of tracking their revenue and expenses because they failed to create budgets as required in their intergovernmental agreement.
In essence, the operation was being run blind and without proper records.
A formal opinion of the city attorney and the city’s bonding attorney clearly states that the DAPC had no legal authority per state law to be running the tennis center in the first place.
The DAPC had hired attorneys to issue legal opinions and advice on their actions. Mr. Doug Warner served as such an attorney for the DAPC in the 1990s and later became a DAPC member under the previous administration. Mr. Mark Oldenburg was later hired as the DAPC attorney.
Both men had a full knowledge of the actions of the authority and failed to raise objections concerning the unlawful or “ultra vires” (referring to acts of the authority or its officers outside the powers or authority allowed by state law) actions of the authority.
Since many of the DAPC’s actions were performed outside of the parameters of state law that require public notice, public discussion and a public vote, it is a direct insult to ask the taxpayers to assume a debt that neither the City Council nor the general public were even made aware of until well after the deeds had been committed.
In the disclosure portion of the current lawsuit, the bank failed to produce nearly 40 percent of the items requested by the city’s attorneys.
Some of the requests that were not fulfilled were as simple as wanting the bank’s standard procedures on issuing loans.
The DAPC recently hired accountants to perform an audit and the firm concluded that they could not determine where most of the funds went or for what purpose they were used.
Your current City Council will absolutely not stand for the type of lawlessness that we have witnessed over the years, much less reimburse them for it.
If a candidate for elected office deems it proper to sponsor, uphold and fully fund ultra vires acts that took place in a closed room purposefully devoid of public attention, then the voters need to seriously scrutinize such a person’s motivation for running for office. Thomas Fuller said it best, “Law cannot persuade where it cannot punish.”
The candidate wants to give the DAPC and the bank a $1.5 million freebee while punishing the taxpayers by making them pick up the tab for a debt of which neither they nor their elected officials had any knowledge. Such an unthinkable act can only be classified as dishonorable and undemocratic.
Steve Brown, mayor Peachtree City, Ga.
Mayor not in same league with Farr
As a resident of Fayette County for over 20 years, I can remember when we looked forward to the growth of our county.
We did not have the quality restaurants we now enjoy. We did not have the libraries in Fayetteville, Peachtree City and Tyrone, well-stocked with books, periodicals and computers. Those facilities were too small for the growing population and the resources, both financial and physical, were woefully lacking.
We did not have amphitheaters for family entertainment. We did not have a four-lane highway between Fayetteville and Peachtree City.
We did not have a hospital. We did not have many white-collar jobs and the blue-collar jobs did not lend much for advancement.
Why, you might ask, am I wading in the past? Because of the inane comment made by Peachtree City Mayor Steve Brown.
His response to former Mayor Bob Lenox regarding Lenox’s statement, “Name a friend of mine who made a lot of money,” Mayor Brown stated, “I’m sure Tom Farr doing all the Development Authority bonds and all that stuff.”
That statement alone shows Mayor Brown’s complete lack of knowledge of the history of Peachtree City and the quality growth which the community enjoys today.
That statement also shows Mayor Brown’s complete lack of understanding as to what is the purpose of a development authority and how the bond financing program works.
A public official, elected by the populace, should have at least a rudimentary knowledge of how governmental and quasi-governmental agencies operate. As one who seems to want to have his nose in everyone’s business, Mayor Brown should take the time to understand the agency before taking shots at its former leaders.
From my professional knowledge of the workings of economic development and during my tenure as the head of a community-based nonprofit organization, I evidenced that Tom Farr and the members of the Development Authority of Peachtree City (DAPC) brought well-paying jobs to Peachtree City.
Mr. Farr and the members of the DAPC worked tirelessly to put together information to persuade prospects to venture outside of I-285 and see the attributes of Peachtree City as a corporate headquarters location, a location for businesses to grow and be profitable and as a location which afforded a great quality of life.
Those officials, at that time, gave much to the community and asked nothing in return.
A few hurried lunches with a prospect, with the locals doing the talking and trying to persuade the prospect to invest hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of dollars in the community, and a late night dinner or two is hardly something which enriched those community boosters.
The enrichment they did receive was the knowledge of a job well-done, hardly something Mayor Brown can state.
Tom Farr was above reproach on his work with the DAPC. His only thought for all the years he devoted to the DAPC was whether the project would benefit the community, not himself nor any financial institution which employed him.
To Mayor Brown, I invoke the famous line during a vice presidential debate and I take liberty with paraphrasing that line. “Mayor Brown, I knew Tom Farr. Tom Farr was a friend of mine. You are no Tom Farr.”
Maybe if you diligently devote yourself to serving the citizens of Peachtree City as Tom Farr did, you may someday be one-quarter the man he was.
Bob Simmons Fayetteville, Ga.
Walgreens’ rezoning negatively affects all of PTC
The issue of rezoning the property in Peachtree City at the intersection of Ga. Highway 54 and Peachtree Parkway has more implications and repercussions than just to the surrounding residents. Rezoning of this property will impact all of Peachtree City.
I truly do not understand our Planning Commission nor our City Council members voting yes on this rezoning.
Why do we want to change the look of the Parkway/54 intersection? Why would we want two drugstores across the street from each other? Isn’t the 54/74 traffic snarl enough? Why does the city want to eventually create a traffic jam from west of 54/74 to east of 54/Peachtree Parkway? We are slowly getting to that point.
Explain to me the comment, “working in the church’s favor is the commercial presence at two other corners of the intersection (Peachtree Crossing Shopping Center and the Ruby Tuesday’s/Eckerd). So what?
Signatures (some 1,600 I’ve heard) on the petitions circulated indicate a larger population of PTC residents opposed to this rezoning.
It has nothing to do with the church’s dilemma for need of more space, nor to do with the church’s evangelism mission. It has nothing to do with people not being members of this particular church.
I’m sure if you scanned the signatures on the petition, you’d most likely find we are all members of churches within Peachtree City.
It also should have nothing to do with paybacks nor favors to one particular organization. The commission and the City Council should be honest brokers and represent the population of PTC.
Opposition to this rezoning solely concerns the impact of a quality of life in PTC. Why begin to ruin the look of the Parkway in PTC? In my opinion, the parkway in the only part of Peachtree City pleasing to one’s eye and worthy of giving Peachtree City the designation “Planned Community.”
I think I’m truly confused as to what the concept “Planned Community” does mean to our city officials. Can’t we just say no to some of these commercial development requests, and serve and listen to the citizens of Peachtree City, those who after all do travel the streets daily?
I’ve always encouraged my two children to speak up, get involved in the community, and to make their voices known. I’ve instilled in them that it matters and they can make a difference.
I trust the Planning Commission and City Council will listen to the desires of PTC citizens and deny this rezoning by Walgreens.
Here are a few options to consider: (1) Walgreens to be located north or south end of Peachtree City or both. (2) Lutheran Church offer its building to the Gathering Place for seniors, right in the heart of the city.
Fran Plunkett Peachtree City, Ga.
Issue is not church, it’s Walgreens in PTC heart
Many articles have appeared recently in the local papers concerning Christ Our Shepherd Lutheran Church, Walgreens and rezoning.
It seems that in virtually every article, a representative of the church is quoted as saying that the church needs to move because it has no room to expand at its present location.
I think to myself, So what? The church doesn’t need to justify to the reader why it wants to move. People would like it to stay, but if it feels it has to move, then just do it.
The issue is not the church. The issue is Walgreens. It’s worth repeating. Purely and simply, the issue is Walgreens.
If that company feels that it has a strong case to present, then let it justify to all concerned why it would be good for PTC to allow it to build a drugstore on that corner.
So, let’s stop confusing the situation by repeatedly implying that because the church wants to move, therefore the city should happily oblige and accept Walgreens in its place. This is neither a logical nor a reasonable argument, and it will not improve no matter how many times it is restated.
The community’s concern is not to placate the church, but to decide only if it is good for the city to have a Walgreens on that corner. I, for one, say no.
Lisaann Eberle Peachtree City, Ga.
Parkway-54 intersection now a delicate balance
It seems like such a waste tearing down a lovely church for yet another drug store, 24 hours of convenience at what price to our quality of life?
Maybe our city is too young for preservation to be an issue. Unlike Newnan we do not have a Wadsworth Auditorium to preserve or a Fayetteville downtown, but we do have a signature quality of life, and public safety does still matter here.
What is facing Peachtree City is whether to grant a rezoning of the Christ Our Shepherd Lutheran Church property at the corner of Ga. Highway 54 and Peachtree Parkway for commercial development.
This intersection, at the heart of our city, is now 50-50 church and commercial with the two existing churches buffering neighborhoods. It is a delicate balance.
One argument is that the village design concept calls for commercial development on the arterial roads at the village core. That is not what I see when I drive up and down the highway and parkway.
Hwy. 54 from east city limits to Ga. Highway 74 is a lovely mixed-use corridor that is as much “Church Street” as it is commercial.
Count them; there are six major churches plus two more Methodist campuses and St. Andrew’s in the Pines Episcopal Church just blocks away. This rezoning from Office-Institutional would set a terrible precedent.
Preservation usually encompasses architecture, but it can mean much more.
Recently a failed theater, a closed Donatos Pizza and a fire-damaged Morrison’s Cafeteria were replaced respectively with a restaurant, more Avenue retail space and an Eckerd Drug Store across the street from Christ Our Shepherd.
While neither these original nor replacement structures are or will be particularly appealing, we had little influence in their replacement since they all were land planned and zoned commercial.
Taking a wrecker ball and bulldozers to demolish a statuesque and beautiful church, lawn and fountain at the crossroads of Peachtree City simply goes too far.
It is not just the memories of baptisms, weddings, living mangers each Christmas and fellowship that are lost forever. There would be a significant loss to the community as well.
Preservation usually involves community-wide fund drives. In comparison this is easy. All that is necessary is for the Peachtree City Council to “Vote No” to the proposed zoning change on this property from Office-Institutional to Commercial and for the church to accept the community’s decision.
So what would a “Yes” vote bring? A typical Walgreens has 25,000 items and annual sales of $7.4 million.
The developer’s initial proposal calls for a bigger than average 14,600 square foot building with a very, very high ceiling for surveillance cameras. This is more than a third bigger than an Eckerd.
They, of course, also do a lot more business than a typical Eckerd or CVS. The developer projects 1,500 cars per day, not counting traffic into the second business to be named.
In short, Walgreens runs the highest volume stores in the industry, which their high stock market cap reflects.
There is other readily available commercial property in Peachtree City. The community would simply be better served with a different site location. After all, we do have a land use plan to defend.
Walgreens intent is, however, very clear. They state in the first line of their 2003 annual report, “We build stores where we want to be, rather than where the sites happen to be.”
First lines and first impressions can both be revealing. As can your editor’s recent editorial line, “The abandonment of the Lutheran corner would represent a betrayal of the community’s very foundations.”
Christ Our Shepherd has long been a pillar of the community. They are in my opinion a resilient, engaged congregation whose ministry will prosper no matter what the decision. They are clearly a church capable of serving all for the common and better good.
Preservation and spirituality should be complementary objectives. A “Vote No” by City Council on changing the zoning to Commercial does not stop Christ Our Shepherd from moving.
It would, however, likely ensure that the most attractive corner of Peachtree City is preserved at the very heart of our community.
Otherwise we get the biggest box drugstore in town plus a retail business to be named. There are much more suitable sites for both.
We are a planned community. Let’s stick to the plan and help preserve Peachtree City’s quality of life, our unique signature on the landscape of America.
B. Ray Helton Peachtree City, Ga.
Kedron deserves better than this
As a long-time parent of two students at Kedron Elementary, I was quite surprised to read the anonymous complaints about the school and its administration.
After six years of experience I have nothing but good things to say about the teachers, the staff, and the administration. In that time I have met literally scores of parents and to my knowledge I have never encountered anyone that had issues with the school.
If the vast majority of the kids and parents have a very positive experience, those few who wish to complain anonymously may want to look in the mirror to see why they are one of the very few with a problem.
Even if there is a disagreement, it would set a better example for their children if they would address problems openly rather than hiding behind anonymous complaints. I believe all educational leaders deserve that much respect.
I am privileged to have my children be Kedron Knights.
Pepper Adams Peachtree City, Ga.
Democrats should remember Korea
I have been living in Peachtree City since 1989. I was always of the opinion that people write letters and e-mails to you for getting exposure and to expound their own viewpoints to their own, general satisfaction.
Cookie McClure’s letter [Feb. 9, 2005] made me change my mind about expressing my opinions to you and your readers. Too many of us just sat back and did not speak out loudly enough about many important issues. Cookie spoke her mind, quite well and now I am taking issue with some of the goings-on.
I do not know Timothy Parker and I also do not know Mr. Dickinson. I do know that Mr. Parker took great pains to go back in history to 1787 and the amendment of the Articles of Confederation.
I wish he did not go back quite that far, but only to June 1950, the start of U.S. involvement in Korea.
It was the fight against communism, a conceived threat to the U.S., which led our Democratic President, Harry Truman, to get involved in the war. It cost the U.S. 33,741 dead and 92,134 seriously wounded personnel.
A continuing effort to fight the spread of communism resulted in President Kennedy’s concern and President Johnson’s sending troops to Vietnam. By the time that war ended, there were over 58,000 confirmed U.S. personnel killed.
Our present involvement in Iraq started as a continuing fight against terrorism, which threatens our country at least as much as the perceived threats of communism spreading did within the last half century.
All of us were horrified by the events of 9-11 and wondered how it could happen on our own land. We became a unified nation, for a short while anyway, until politics as usual took over.
We should remember that our fight against terror is not over and we must support our government in its efforts to continue safeguarding our nation.
